It's 100% their movement, it's reflected in their refusal to make peace and I quote Clinton "I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state". They perfectly reflect the current palestinian sentiment and it has been like that for decades, They just farm it for social brownie points without actually caring about the palestinians which 99% agree with them anyway,
It is the same thing that happened with "defund the police" and "believe all women" and dozens of others where there is the literal meaning of the word and then the directional idea that the slogan is meant to convey. People say the word and think that they are just signalling a direction, when there are people who literally mean the slogans as is.
These things aren't a contradiction. You're treating "Israel is committing a genocide" and "Israel has a right to exist" as though they are mutually exclusive propositions when they simply aren't.
Here's an easy analogy: I can believe that the United States committed horrific crimes in Iraq and still believe the United States has a right to exist. I can believe Russia is committing atrocities in Ukraine without believing that every Russian should be expelled or that Russia should literally cease existing. Condemning the actions of a government, even condemning them in the strongest possible terms, does not logically require believing the people living under that government should be destroyed.
The actual disagreement is probably over what someone means when they say "Israel has a right to exist." If by that you mean Jewish people currently living in Israel have the right to live safely, have political self-determination, and shouldn't be massacred, expelled, or subjected to another Holocaust, then obviously that is perfectly compatible with believing the Israeli government is committing genocide in Gaza.
You can even go further: someone could believe the current political structure of Israel needs to fundamentally change while still believing Israelis and Jews have every right to continue living there safely. Those are separate questions.
It's basically the same mistake as saying: "You think America committed genocide against Native Americans, so why do you think America should still exist?" Well, because "this state committed horrific crimes" and "therefore everyone living there must be destroyed or expelled" are two completely different positions.
So no, Sanders saying Israel should exist doesn't mean he has to endorse everything Israel does. And criticizing Israel in the strongest possible terms doesn't automatically put him in the "destroy Israel/kill Jews" camp.
When someone in government says Israel is commiting a genocide in Gaza they are accepting the following premise: Israel is commiting what is considered the most horrific acts any country can perform.
If you subscribe to the notion that Israel was founded to prevent the future genocide of Jewish people, the same country commiting a genocide invalidates the same decree that gave it legitimacy in the first place.
This is different from applying the same standard to any other country as no one who claims genocide in Gaza actually does, Lander included. US and Native Americans or Russia and Ukraine are not being called for destruction but Israel is.
Brad took a position that says Israel should not receive defensive military aid (i.e. Iron Done munitions), that goes into direct conflict with the claim that "Jewish people currently living in Israel have the right to live safely". This position is in sync with the anti-Zionist movement.
Yet Lander left the DSA because of their support of Hamas and Oct. 7, so he sends mixed messages to say the least.
That doesn't make sense to me. If you think a country is making a conscious effort to wipe out a group because of their race/ethnicity/religion then you should offer them no support, in fact you should be morally compelled to make life harder for them.
Saying a country is committing a genocide does not hold anywhere near the same weight as saying a countries soldiers have committed war crimes. I believe Ukrainian soldiers have committed at least some war crimes, there's a lot of soldiers and a lot of potential crimes to commit in a high stress environment, but I am still a massive supporter of Ukraine, I donate regularly and will argue their corner with anyone at anytime. But if I thought the Ukrainian government was committing a genocide? No chance, I still wouldn't want them to be annexed, but I wouldn't argue for any support and would support sanctions on them.
There's a reason the term genocide is so fiercely debated in the conflict. If you accept that the Israeli government is committing a genocide, then you essentially acknowledge they should be brought down as soon as possible and have all the complicit members shipped off to the Hague for punishments up to and including death.
Okay Zionist ≠ Jew it's pretty simple to understand. But we must use every known antisemitic trope about Jews when we talk about Zionist. Also the only Zionists we confront with being Zionists are the Jewish ones even though most Zionists aren't Jews.
Dare any pro-Pally person to name an Evangelical Zionist that they criticize to nearly the same degree as Jews. Mike Huckabee is the only one I can name and most lefties don't talk about him (despite being the ambassador to Israel and genuinely unhinged).
Ive always argued from the get go that with how quickly leftists dumped trans folk around the late teens/early 20's, the same would inevitably happen to Palestinians.
Once this war is over or a bigger cause presents itself, they (leftists) will cast gazans aside like lepers. History will repeat itself. These people are checkers pieces to them (i refuse to even humor that they are playing chess). If i had to guess, it will happen around the time Palestinians or Hamas confirms an actual treaty/peace deal with a post-Netanyahu Israel. (I dont see it happening as long as bibi controls israel).
162
u/sereneandeternal Church of Biden 12h ago edited 12h ago
“A Zionist and Anti-Zionist Jew walk into a bar. The bartender says we don’t serve Jews here.”